• Philosophy and Spirituality
    Welcome Guest
    Posting Rules Bluelight Rules
    Threads of Note Socialize
  • P&S Moderators: JackARoe | Cheshire_Kat

Pedophilia: Inherited, Spiritual, Or Who The Hell Cares?

If you read he says 'other boys my age' - what sort of interested me on that message (why I remembered it) was that he was attracted to minors and wanted a loving relationship with one (regardless how old he was). What he never really explained or touched up was, what happened when they aged? Once they were out of his interest age of 11-16 would he want another one?

(Yeah you were quite active in the thread :D).

Pretty glad I found it and it hadn't been archived, quite relevant to this thread.
 
I guess I'll be the controversial one...

It's my understanding that pedophilia is a sexual orientation, just like heterosexuality and homosexuality. Whether these labels actually matter is another debate, I guess. Pedophilia also operates on an arbitrary spectrum, I'm noticing. It's one thing to bugger a child less than 10 years old, but it's another thing to call it 'child rape' when a 16 year old sleeps with a legal adult. In high school I had many peers sleeping with older people in their late 20's and even 30's. It was exciting for them. When I was 16 my boyfriend was 24... I had no interest in my peers, they were immature and annoying, and just not attractive to me. Older men had developed bodies, cars, money, and were generally more interesting. (Now I look back at that 24 year old and shake my head, but I digress.) A lot of my experiences with men older than myself were initiatory. They taught me things about my mind, body and spirit that my peers never could have, and it all had to be behind closed doors because society deemed it wrong.

Most pedophilia is incestuous, within families... like 80% of it. On that note, incest is extremely common. If you get to know most people close enough, you can find out that they fooled around with a cousin or two somewhere along the way. Sometimes it's even fooling around with a same-sex cousin, despite them now being heterosexual. Then there was Greek and Roman pederasty, which also had its equivalents in ancient China and many other parts of the world.

I'm not prepared to say that pedophilia isn't deviant, but I do think it's extremely common... which leads me to wonder if we're overlooking some kind of sociological function for it. I've often wondered what our world would be like if pedophilia weren't pathologized, and if pedophiles didn't have to sneak around in the dark abducting children. What if those relationships were permissible? In ancient Greece parents could consent to pederasty.

We talk about children not being able to give consent, but only 100 years ago children as young as 5 were being sent to work in mines, in factories, and in jobs that nowadays we would deem too dangerous for them to go near. We treat children as fragile pieces of porcelain now, when it was the norm for most of history to put them into very adult roles from day one. Not saying this is "right" or "wrong", but just commenting on the contrast.

I personally don't get pedophilia... I've always been into adult men, even before I was an adult. But then, I don't get zoophilia either. I mean, if I'm petting a cat that's in heat and she has an orgasm, am I a zoophile?

Humans are so obsessed with morals and propriety, all while breaking the rules half the time. I guess bottom line is that I just don't care so much anymore. I guess I care in a relative way that children are being raped, but I don't believe that's mutually inclusive to pedophilia as a whole. No one deserves to receive sexual advances without consent. But children aren't allowed to consent in today's world. They could 100 years ago, but not anymore.
 
Most pedophiles, that is, men who've actually attempted sexual contact with a child, didn't have normal childhoods themselves. They were either introduced to sex (and usually violence too) way too early and settings too shameful for discussion with really anyone but a healthcare professional. As a result, they became alienated from their peers who "came of age" the normal way, learning about sex in slow fits and starts in a way that bonded them, and in a way they society told them was normal. Or they were essentially denied any sort of childhood and the normal social interactions it involves. Many learned to be frightened and mistrustful of all adults, and when this carries over into adulthood, it can make it hard, if not impossible, to see an adult as an object of sexual desire.

I think the situation is a little more complicated for women (since a basic general truth of female sexual desire is that power is sexy), but I don't think fear has any place in most men's sexual arousal. In fact, I would reckon that most men are not capable of feeling sexual attraction toward a person they fear, to any degree for any reason.

So these men instead continue to relate socially to those people who DON'T threaten them, namely, kids. And as for most people, ease and enjoyment of social interaction is fertile grounds for sexual attraction. This is especially true for men who are sex-starved, or who have learned to suppress their self-awareness of their own sexuality due to shame (again, MANY were sexually abused as children). In short, the key to understanding most cases of garden variety pedophilia, is that we're talking about grown men who are used to gaining their social sustinence from children instead of other adults.

I've met many people who, for one reason or another, only felt truly comfortable most of their upbringing relating socially to people of a certain ethno-cultural background. If this persists into adulthood, then usually what happens is that only people of that background will pop onto their radar when they're looking for a romantic partner. Attractive people of other backgrounds just kind of blend into the background scenery. I think it's an analogous situation for many pedophiles.

Notice I've singled out men. I have met women who've been molded by similar forces to what I describe, and are comfortable as adults relating only to kids. (I even have a former medical school classmate who has outright said that she feels compassion only for children, never for any adults; she's becoming a pediatric oncologist and palliative care doc. Hey, I'm glad there's somebody out there who wants that job!) But seldom do I see such women's gravitation toward children take on a sexual tone. Instead, I find most women like this tend to come off as fairly asexual. Then again, I think it's a basic general truth of human sexuality that women have an easier time curbing their sexual urges than men, and I bet most would-be female pedophiles (and other flavors of "perverts") find "just say no" a perfectly workable solution toward sexual urges that society condemns.

Inherited? Yes, in the correct definition of this word. I bet in a lot of cases pedophilia is passed on intergenerationally in families and villages, through boys who are ushered into sex acts by adult men most of their childhoods, who then go on to seek out sexual experiences with children in turn because 1) somewhere in the back of their minds this behavior is "normal", and 2) they don't trust or relate to adults, as I described above. And the cycle continues. I agree that adult-male-on-child sex is an ancient part of the human condition that we're only now coming to terms with, since it's been largely written out of history. So in this way too, it's inherited.

If by "inherited" you mean "genetic", then no, I disagree. I don't think it's a birth defect the way homosexuality and transsexuality are, and I don't think it's hardwired in utero in the same way. That said, there are probably genetically coded traits that, with the right environmental influences, raise the odds that one will choose child sexual partners. I think it's more akin to a fetish than a sexual orientation.

Spiritual? Yes, in the correct definition of the word. In the end I think pedophiles only want the same thing we all want -- connectivity with other people. It's just that the only people they feel able to connect with are children. That's sad, really, but it's not always their fault. If I were, say, a chaplain offering spiritual guidance to a convicted pedophile, I would try to get a sense of where his reticence toward adults springs from, and conversely, what "food for the soul" he derives from befriending children. Once he'd trusted me enough to share these sorts of highly personal details, I'd try to help him cultivate forgiveness for the adults who'd shattered his trust in adults, and try to ease him very slowly into acceptance and opening up to fellow adults, so that he could see that relating to them was not only possible but potentially gratifying. That's the foundation for healthy sexual relationships.

If by "spiritual" you mean that pedophiles are cursed, damned, god-forsaken, or bigtime karma debtors from this life or a previous one, then no, I disagree. We're all sparks of the divine caked with unique layers of worldly flith which dull that light, and each of our crusts of filth is our unique individual burden to bear. The second we entertain the notion that one person is by design holier than another, we're on a slippery slope down from the heights of spirituality to the depraved depths of human oneupsmanship.

"Who the hell cares?" I think we all do. The fact is that the modern West is composed of societies where early, fast, ambiguously consensual introduction to sex is incompatible with being a well-adjusted individual the rest of one's life. One comes of age, and learns to develop a healthy Western sense of self as an empowered and self-loving individual by learning about sex slowly, through awkward teenage bumbling and in sharing these fits and starts with fellow comers-of-age (no pun intended). This process has a powerful shaping force on all aspects of one's sense of self as an adult. I think it was Ayn Rand who said "Tell me what a culture thinks about sex, and I'll tell you everything else that culture values". I'm not a huge fan of Ayn Rand, and I think that's a gross oversimplification, but I think she was onto something. Learning about sex in a way that deviates markedly from this years-long ritual has the potential to alienate a person profoundly from their peers, giving them few if any outlets to work through the confused and mixed feelings of "what happened to me as a child".

Simply put, we live in a society where sex has no place in childhood. Even if a child sincerely believes that what they're choosing is entirely consensual, and feels completely right at the time, they do not have the perspective to see that they're making a choice that will likely alter the entire course of their development as people. The adults who solicit sex from them, on the other hand, do have that perspective, if they have any empathy. And that's why what they do is wrong.
 
but genelogical/historical studies shatter this 'science' & reveal the problem of men perpetrating sexual acts against women and children is socially constructed. It was a normal man thing to do without recourse (until activists helped get it recognised as 'crime')

Yea, it would just have been normal and a man's right for most of history. Sometimes thinking about things like white sexual slavery, rapes, and gang rapes for fun or punishment makes me wonder why anyone would want to come into this world as a female. Sure, it has its other upsides and the world would end without us, but there are so many victims subject to brutal, psychological trauma, because of it. Because of this, I have trust issues with men I don't think I will ever get over, even if I've never been subject to any attack.

Well, if they don't rape you, they can just use you for pleasure while you don't mean anything to them. And even if they love you they can just use your body in a heartless way when the mood strikes them. I don't appreciate it, I guess I was meant to be in a nunnery, if I wasn't so wild. Most men fuck up most of their relationships that way, anyway.
 
Last edited:
Yea, it would just have been normal and a man's right for most of history. Sometimes thinking about things like white sexual slavery, rapes, and gang rapes for fun or punishment makes me wonder why anyone would want to come into this world as a female. Sure, it has its other upsides and the world would end without us, but there are so many victims subject to brutal, psychological trauma, because of it. Because of this, I have trust issues with men I don't think I will ever get over, even if I've never been subject to any attack.

Well, if they don't rape you, they can just use you for pleasure while you don't mean anything to them. And even if they love you they can just use your body in a heartless way when the mood strikes them. I don't appreciate it, I guess I was meant to be in a nunnery, if I wasn't so wild. Most men fuck up most of their relationships that way, anyway.

Like most women, I have been sexually assaulted, sexually humiliated & sexually harassed within this masculine hegemony we live in. This happened as a kid, as a teenager & as an adult. The inequality is not history... it is the present. No one can dispute the stats & those who try to justify the disproportionate harm are basing it on their self interests, not reality.

I know it is hard.

I am pro-women, but not anti-men. I am anti-asshole though.... but I am happy to say there are some good guys out there who will respect you & your body if that is what you want.. but sometimes they are few & far between.

Take care out there!
 
Ninae:
Well, you have a society that treats you like a victim in the courts. You can live parasitically off of men's productivity then play the victim in a divorce, robbing him of half his worth that you have not earned and don't deserve. For the same crime (except murder committed without a male accomplice) women will always get less of a sentence than a man would for the exact same act. If you commit a crime with any male you can posture as a victim again and get off with a slap on the wrist. In the United States more men get raped than women because of prison rape. You need to stop feeling sorry for yourself, it is sickening. Any man you don't like you can just cry rape and have them put away, you don't even have to look them in the eyes when you lie because the courts don't want you to be re victimized.

There is a deep seated bias against men that men seem to play along with (spacejunk). You can complain that men get better jobs out of insecurity but when actual crimes are committed men invariably get the short end of the stick. Women are just as likely to abuse children, where do you think all these rapists came from? Women are simply more likely to get the benefit of the doubt and get away with it while men always face the full wrath of the legal system. Men use you for your body? Stop being a whore and don't go along with it. You are not a victim, you know how the game is played. What is stopping you from being more selective with the men you choose? Women pretend they are going to have sex with men just to get them to buy drinks etc. just as often as men pretend they want a relationship when they just want sex.

You complain about inequality but never mention the inequalities that benefit you. It says a lot about what kind of person you are. You live in a first world country, you need to stop worrying about imaginary enemies.

Regarding the topic at hand, women are just as likely to abuse children. They may be less impulsive about it due to difference in their sex drive but that is it. Saying women are less likely to molest children is like saying women are less likely to have sex. Assuming these attractions occur at equal frequencies among the genders the comparison is legitimate. Male victims of female perpetrators are far less likely to come forward and more likely to fail to recognize that they were abused.

Doors: are you honestly implying that men, in general, have less self-control than women? It seems you have adopted a self-defeating ideology. Regarding aggression you may think men are worse, however in my psychology courses they cited several studies showing that the rates of direct aggression in men were evenly matched by indirect aggression ("passive"-aggression) by women. You could argue this is worse because it typically involves more underhandedness and manipulation.

To the hypocritical scum that would label me erroneously as sexist: are the generalizations you make about men not the definition of such?
 
Last edited:
If anyone is sincerely interested in learning about this with an archeological/historical perspective (and not just repeating the same ol' psychiatric dominant discourses about genetics, intergenerational history of abuse, mental illness etc) can I suggest reading 'The History of Sexuality' by Michel Foucault. The man's work is fucking genius.
 
Ninae:
Well, you have a society that treats you like a victim in the courts. You can live parasitically off of men's productivity then play the victim in a divorce, robbing him of half his worth that you have not earned and don't deserve. For the same crime, women will always get less of a sentence than a man would for the exact same act. If you commit a crime with any male you can posture as a victim again and get off with a slap on the wrist. In the United States more men get raped than women because of prison rape. You need to stop feeling sorry for yourself, it is sickening. Any man you don't like you can just cry rape and have them put away, you don't even have to look them in the eyes when you lie because the courts don't want you to be re victimized.

There is a deep seated bias against men that men seem to play along with (spacejunk). You can complain that men get better jobs out of insecurity but when actual crimes are committed men invariably get the short end of the stick. Women are just as likely to abuse children, where do you think all these rapists came from? Women are simply more likely to get the benefit of the doubt and get away with it while men always face the full wrath of the legal system. Men use you for your body? Stop being a whore and don't go along with it. You are not a victim, you know how the game is played. What is stopping you from being more selective with the men you choose? Women pretend they are going to have sex with men just to get them to buy drinks etc. just as often as men pretend they want a relationship when they just want sex.

You complain about inequality but never mention the inequalities that benefit you. It says a lot about what kind of person you are. You live in a first world country, you need to stop worrying about imaginary enemies.

Regarding the topic at hand, women are just as likely to abuse children. They may be less impulsive about it due to difference in their sex drive but that is it. Saying women are less likely to molest children is like saying women are less likely to have sex. Assuming these attractions occur at equal frequencies among the genders the comparison is legitimate. Male victims of female perpetrators are far less likely to come forward and more likely to fail to recognize that they were abused.

Doors: are you honestly implying that men, in general, have less self-control than women? It seems you have adopted a self-defeating ideology. Regarding aggression you may think men are worse, however in my psychology courses they cited several studies showing that the rates of direct aggression in men were evenly matched by indirect aggression ("passive"-aggression) by women. You could argue this is worse because it typically involves more underhandedness and manipulation.

My god, you project way too much. Could you let her put some thoughts into words without being so dam keem to discredit it?!

And using bad selective stats gets you nowhere. They do not hold up.

And when you say men are raped more, it doesn't change the sex of the perpetrator. That would be men, your predominant rapist.

If you want to use legal cases to justify your dogma, take a look (a critical look, not biased one) at murder rates and conviction and then try again.

Don't bother replying. I think you are an idiot.
 
You are simply projecting your own gender insecurities onto men. It is pathetic how you try to discredit my entire argument with an ad hominem fallacy. Ninae put her thoughts into words and may do so again. You act like she is a victim, you are so transparent and disgusting.

The fatal flaw in your feeble argument is that you are using the term "rape" instead of sexual assault. Women commit sexual assault with near impunity albeit with arguably less frequncy but cannot technically commit rape.

Murder is the only exception (other than mandatory minimums I guess) regarding sentencing because the sentence is always the same, nice try though. How you you look at the statistics for all other crime? What "bad selective statistics" am I using?

You are just slovenly, mentally deficient damaged goods who wants to blame everyone else for her own inadequacies. Go wallow in your own self-pity some more.
 
Last edited:
I'm not trying make excuses for crimes. I am just tired of this bias towards men, as if it is inherent to our nature to do these things. I am especially tired of the bigots of hypocracy like alice_chipper whose lifelong hatred and vindictiveness perpetuate the conflict as if their goal in life is to make themselves into someone who deserved the abuse they received.

The issue is that women can abuse legal institutions, which were designed, by men, to protect women, in order to seek revenge against men so easily and do so readily. This is why, when speaking about the issue on a societal level, I have very little sympathy.
 
Ninae: In the United States more men get raped than women because of prison rape.

This is one thing I'm well aware of, and acknowledged, but also something I consider a separate subject, which doesn't have anything to do with or can be used to excuse or justify sexual violence against women.

I don't really know why you would even bring it up? Especially as it pretty much invalidates the rest of your line of reasoning on the matter (Homo-sexual rape in an all-male environment has nothing to do with date-rape in a normal setting).

You need to stop feeling sorry for yourself, it is sickening. Any man you don't like you can just cry rape and have them put away, you don't even have to look them in the eyes when you lie because the courts don't want you to be re victimized.

WTF and sorry? That is quite a serious accusation for someone who has never done, or even been near, anything like that. The closest I've been to rape was when a black man held me down in a bus-shelter just as a police car drove past and chased him away. Never "cried rape" in my life but in that case it was self-evident.

Naturally, it wouldn't provoke as much fear or other negative emotions in a man as it's not something that's as likely to happen to you. But you might, for instance, feel a twinge of empathy or anger at the injustice going on, even if it's with someone other than you, or even your sex. And before you say, it's not a racist matter, either, I dated a Muslim for a while and he licked my feet, and was what I'd call an exceptionally good person (And that doesn't mean I'm a narcissist who demand my feet licked all day, just an expression to show that he treated me exceptionally well and went out of his way to please me, etc. Well, he did and fair is fair).

But I still can't say I feel happy about living in a society where sexual assault of women is so commonplace it doesn't lift an eye brow. And I have to read things like "14 year old girl picked up from bus stop by 5 Muslims and raped all night". I'm sure there are many women/girls who feel the same, and frankly, I think we're entitled. Seeing something like this, of which we're bombared with, can make quite a violent impression on a woman's psyche. You'd think girls would de-sensitised to this kind of thing by now, but that's not necessarily a good thing, and you can never be completely de-sensitised to something like this.

There is a deep seated bias against men that men seem to play along with (spacejunk).

You can say the same thing about women, only in a slightly different way, and it doesn't really go anywhere so I don't like to go there.

Men use you for your body?

They WANT to use me for my body, and that's almost as bad. I guess you could say it's annoying like a man who can't get laid would find that to be annoying. How does even the prospect make you feel? Worthless? Unmaculine? Unloveable? Not that great at any rate, I'd wager.

But of course, this is of no concern to the opposite sex in general, as in modern life there's no compassion between the sexes and no willingness to understand, really (speaking of the majority).

Stop being a whore and don't go along with it.

WTF? What are you even insinuating? Did it occur to you that being treated, or given a role, as something you're NOT, might rub you up the wrong way?

These days you sure don't need to ACT like a whore or LOOK like a whore to be treated like one. Men are so desperate they will try anything just in case. You'd be shocked to hear some of the proposals I've received from crazy men (which they can all be when they're in heat). Like a man on the wrong side of 80 suggesting I move in with him for free to help out with household chores (and the occasional shower - I could probably be on his payroll by now). These things do affect how you see men.

Those cases are just laughable, though. It's the ones who goes for your heart and then (try) to play with it who are my worst fear. They don't just think "There's a slut I'll have some fun with tonight". It's more something like they fall halfway in love but can't quite live up to it or fall completely in love but disappoint me in some way. But most of all I feel bad about the state of humanity, male/female relationships in general, and for men just as much as women.

Men seem to divide women into two groups:
1. Worthless whory scum who are only good for one thing
2. The girl-friend type they can let into their heart

But this system doesn't always work as they mess it up, either due to their own paranoia, poor judge of character, or own cheating male nature (or because the woman is already ruined by past men or a problematic relationbship with men).

So it's not that guys see me as the whory type that is the problem. It's more that they seem to see me as an exception, or someone to give their heart to, or that has always been my role. But even despite that they manage to disappoint me. Especially when I look at men as a whole and how they treat women as a whole.

You are not a victim, you know how the game is played. What is stopping you from being more selective with the men you choose?

Because it's not as easy. Because I AM a potential victim and always will be, which can be traumatic enough in itself, as many women could tell you. And there are billions of actual victims worldwide. So it's not as if I'm in any way safe or in control of my situation, or that any woman is, and that is just a fact. You can preach "Focus on the positive" here, too. But this is a situation where focusing on the positive can't necessarily do much.

How many men have sworn they would never fall for a gold digger? It's not that hard to be fooled. Anyway, it's kind of sad for you that you can't seem muster up an inch of compassion for the opposite sex and just go straight for the jugular. Like there are no victims on the female side, or it's irrelevant enough (I know for some men having problems getting laid is more than excuse enough).

At least I try to understand men and can emphathise with them to some point, but it doesn't mean I'm happy living in a world like this, where I can't always feel safe or really loved by the opposite sex. And I don't see any reason why men should be happy to put up with any kind of abuse at a woman's hand, either.

Women pretend they are going to have sex with men just to get them to buy drinks etc. just as often as men pretend they want a relationship when they just want sex.

You say it like you feel it excuses date-rape or any aggression or anger for being led on that way (even if men should know how the game works) and that losing a tenner is the equivalent of losing your virginity to someone you love and has you convinced he feels the same. The feelings you are playing with are quite dangerous here. I know there are some male social retards who have to go through it again and again, but there are many woman and a disadvantage too.

What I don't like is living in a world like this. To be dependent for love, happiness, and pleasure from a type of being different enough to make it inconvenient, problematic, and at times directly painful. When I try to imagine how many have ended up dead because of this it makes my head spin. I don't have any agenda against MEN, more against nature, or whatever made us this way.

Why can't the sexes just be a bit more compatible or is that too much to ask?

You complain about inequality but never mention the inequalities that benefit you.

Inequality? Don't even go there because we'll never get home. If it was only diverse, minor inequalities it would be nothing to make a fuss about.

I complained about one gross type of crime which I see myself entitled to complain about. And that's the only way I see it possible to have male/female politics type discussions. You need to bring up one thing at a time and talk it through. You can't just steam right ahead with everything that enters your mind. We have seen again and again how that doesn't work. It just doesn't get through to anyone, it's been too over-used with no real solution coming up with it.

I kept to the sexual abuse angle. You were the one who started bringing up the whole male/female war-of-the sexes agenda, which will never be resolved in a discussion. Kind of sad and says a lot that a man these days doesn't have anything to say for himself about it and have to drag all of it he can think of into it right away.

Of course you never get anywhere that way, it's just a way to release emotions and was never designed to resolve anything or make anything better.

It might make you FEEL better for a little while, but at the end you're still in the same place, and it's all been a waste of time more or less (or men actually ENJOY conflict so maybe a little bit less so for them).

To the hypocritical scum that would label me erroneously as sexist: are the generalizations you make about men not the definition of such?

Not referring to everyone who doesn't agree with you about everything as "scum" might also be an improvement - someone else might like red rather than blue, one of your pet-hates, but might turn out to be wonderful in other ways.

So to sum things up - hearing complaints from women who suffer from post-traumatic stress after sexual assault sickens you...but the thought of the actual act taking place...not so much? How close does it have to be? Beloved GF? Mother? Daughter? Your own person?

If you read through my post carefully you'll hopefully be able to see it's not about sexism or man-hatred, or that's not the driving-force behind it. Well, I assume many enough, not all, I know things aren't that bad, will hate it (mostly men who don't see very deeply), but at least I'll hopefully speak for some females who can relate and feel their voice has been heard.


P.S. But too many men show a type of anger whenever these subjects are brought up which seems like it could only be rooted in guilt in some way (don't ask me how).

I actually don't think anger belongs in the context at all here unless it's on the victim's side, and men should at least be able to picture themselves in their place, if nothing else.
 
Last edited:
I think Dank does bring some things of value but I'd like to at least challenge him to try to convey his messages without the use of such harsh language toward others, and personal attacks. He gets way too emotional. He or someone else needs to moderate his behavior.

Dank, I do find what you say interesting, and you offer potential perspective. But you are also blind in ways, such as for example what someone else said about even though more males might be "victims"- the perpetrators are still male. A female victim of a male (this is most often the case in intersex victimization) is most often physically forced or incapacitated to allow the male to assault as he desires. Whatever "victimization" by a female to a male, it would mostly be the male allowing it to occur. Granted there might be some taking advantage of our instinct to get laid and playing into our other instincts, but I can still overpower most females, and I can decide to not let them have power over me, simply. And sexually, I'm naturally a dominator. Women aren't, largely. I don't really need to look after young. I have a lot less invested/don't need to invest as much. I can fuck 1000 women and have 1000 children but a female can only have 1 (usually), at a time. And I can keep on fucking. Of course this will be part of my program, even if its something I need to moderate. I'm nro saying its so clear cut and dry, but generally.

Maybe I didn't get everything. Surely I haven't addressed everything.
 
Last edited:
This is all I really wanted to add -

I think those statements were way over the top, in language that's not really suitable for the content, and points to something not very healthy underneath. I don't really want to have to point it all out as I think it should be pretty obvious...

I would also like to ask most to consider what it would be like to life with a fear they've always been lucky enough to never have known. The fear of direct sexual assault/abuse on on hand...and the fear of really living unloved with someone just putting up a show to get theirs. Some of the most painful experiences a woman can possibly have.

The latter I imagine much like finding out a woman has been pretending to love you just for your money (and like men we've become good at it). Men have killed themselves for that and it's not really a joking matter. The one occurring doesn't make the other alright. Just the contrary. Your eyes should be open to the pain of it.

I'm not trying make excuses for crimes. I am just tired of this bias towards men, as if it is inherent to our nature to do these things. I am especially tired of the bigots of hypocracy like alice_chipper whose lifelong hatred and vindictiveness perpetuate the conflict as if their goal in life is to make themselves into someone who deserved the abuse they received.

The issue is that women can abuse legal institutions, which were designed, by men, to protect women, in order to seek revenge against men so easily and do so readily. This is why, when speaking about the issue on a societal level, I have very little sympathy.

This is generally well known knowledge. If you were to leave out all the genuine idiots, and the ones who just pretend to be dumb, you wouldn't stand with so many left. However, what people are aware of, and what they'll admit to, are two different things.

But this is really more to do with humanity and human compassion than a battle of wits, which is a bit more tricky to get right, and don't contain so many shortcuts and ways to cheat. You need to be consistent, and have been for some time, to be perceived as someone with any credibility. So winning a battle of wits is all well and good but doesn't necessarily mean you're any good with anything else.

And I'm not out to get you in any way, can't even remember seeing your nick before, so I'm starting with a clean slate and no agenda. I guess what I reacted to the most was simply the callousness with which you approach it all, especially victims of sexual abuse. Victims, perpetrators, wrong, right, men, women...doesn't seem to matter much...as long as you're out of harm's way and feel you can speak up well for yourself.

I guess in a way you're right, as it means you're safe, but this is just the selfish kind of attitude that I find depressing these days. It's like most run in orbits around themselves, like they are their own sun, and I can't help thinking they could do so much better. Or can't they? And the cruelty when it comes to attitudes towards sexual assault these days is just chilling. There's seems to be virtually zero compassion for most scenarios....again I said imagine your own daughter...maybe that would bring a tinge of seriousness to it. Remember everyone are somebody's daughter...somebody's beloved.

Also, the way men so easily will cut that part out of it, just to start talking about the problematic male/female relationship in general. As if it wasn't even an issue deserving of its own attention. Jesus Christ. I mean, it's something that will always be there, but these days almost seems more like a source of entertainment. Unless it happens close enough to hurt you. Makes your head spin and wonder...
 
Last edited:
I think Dank does bring some things of value but I'd like to at least challenge him to try to convey his messages without the use of such harsh language toward others, and personal attacks. He gets way too emotional. He or someone else needs to moderate his behavior.

Dank, I do find what you say interesting, and you offer potential perspective. But you are also blind in ways, such as for example what someone else said about even though more males might be "victims"- the perpetrators are still male. A female victim of a male (this is most often the case in intersex victimization) is most often physically forced or incapacitated to allow the male to assault as he desires. Whatever "victimization" by a female to a male, it would mostly be the male allowing it to occur. Granted there might be some taking advantage of our instinct to get laid and playing into our other instincts, but I can still overpower most females, and I can decide to not let them have power over me, simply. And sexually, I'm naturally a dominator. Women aren't, largely. I don't really need to look after young. I have a lot less invested/don't need to invest as much. I can fuck 1000 women and have 1000 children but a female can only have 1 (usually), at a time. And I can keep on fucking. Of course this will be part of my program, even if its something I need to moderate. I'm nro saying its so clear cut and dry, but generally.

Maybe I didn't get everything. Surely I haven't addressed everything.

I might just need to moderate your sphincter, bubba...

Your argument breaks down when it is some huge bulldyke with a smaller guy. It also does not apply when men are severely intoxicated ( this happened to Eminem apparently). Factoring in the impunity and opportunity relating to false accusations that has been created by our naive as well as reactive system and things even out a bit. I know what you mean but a lot of your concerns only apply in the heat of the moment.

Rape culture only exists in India and the muslim world. With the campaigns and ridiculous overzealousness I do not honestly believe it happens more now then a few decades ago. People are just now willing to report the slightest discomfort and it gets hyped in the media to rile women up. It is like that study that asked women in college if they had ever had sex after a drink, calling 100% of these cases rape which then riled up the ravaged bigoted skanks to vent on men.

I'll get to Ninae when I have more free time.
 
I just might need to moderate your sphincter, bubba

Hey you two: 'sphincter moderation' aside, you can make your point w\o recourse to personal insults, and in fact you must if you wish to continue conversing here.

Eee-bowl'a
 
If anyone is sincerely interested in learning about this with an archeological/historical perspective (and not just repeating the same ol' psychiatric dominant discourses about genetics, intergenerational history of abuse, mental illness etc) can I suggest reading 'The History of Sexuality' by Michel Foucault. The man's work is fucking genius.

Lol, I've seen you plug this book in two different threads in just the past few days. I mean, it's brilliantly insightful and essentially established a new way of conceptualizing and investigating social systems. But I'm not sure what foucault would say about pedophilia though.

ebola
 
And then to the OP...I don't think that 'science' yet provides any decent accounts for the development and maintenance of sexual orientation (I'm including various paraphilias and their absences as expressions of sexual orientation, but this is controversial). IMO, there will need be some novel interdisciplinary collaboration which adequately characterizes how cognitive, genetic, affective, and cultural influences interact.

Ebola
 
Who is guilty, the man driven insane because he is forced to live in a caged hell, his mind becoming twisted and demented, or the person that actually built the cage and threw away the key?

Should the "one size fits all" punishment philosophy for sex crimes be altered? If no, why?

What aspects / treatments would you add to this philosophy?

Do you ever see the current philosophical and spiritual stances on these issues changing?

Those who have been abused as children and go on to repeat the crime.. that is really sad, like a mental virus that replicates and cares not for its host. Then there's people like Jimmy Saville who are just remorseless dickheads who know exactly what they're doing.. still can't quite believe that whole story, and it turns out now he was in to fucking dead bodies too. Disgusting individual.

I think there should be a bit more discussion about sex between those who have become sexually active in their teens.. in the UK the legal age is 16 but some are active before this age. I guess you have to draw the line somewhere but obviously some will potentially fall foul of the law and may not have been malicious at all. Then again you could argue they should be more interested in mature individuals.

As for your friend.. if he hadn't had access to the internet would he have developed that interest? I like the mental virus analogy for this.

Can pedophiles be helped? Possibly. But quarantine is the best option so that they don't infect more children, ruin more lives, and cause untold pain.
 
Pedophilia, and much more so, the way first-world societies deal with the issues surrounding it, is deeply fascinating. In their day to day life, there's no social issue that secretly more regularly astonishes the informed true anthropologist, sociologist, or psychologist, by accreditation or natural disposition, more than this phenomenon. And it's because there's no demographic that inspires more wild, rampaging fear and far-ranging cognitive dissonance in the public sphere than what we think of as “pedophiles.” Pedophiles are the closest thing to “witches” and “niggers” that we have left.

It's the lack of basic empirical and historical facts that are omitted from common discussions surrounding pedophilia, and how such side-stepping of the obvious leads to gross failures of distinction, rational and moral, that's so shocking. How is it, for example, that the physiological reactions of normal heterosexual men to pedophilic stimuli never frame discussions? All we have to do is look at an encyclopedia entry (online New Age), tellingly ignored in popular discussion for decades, to get an idea of what these are:

Hall's study, for example, found that approximately 30 percent of their sample—consisting of 80 adult males—exhibited sexual arousal to heterosexual pedophilic stimuli that equaled or exceeded their arousal to the adult stimuli. Further studies indicated that even men erotically fixated on adult females are generally prone to react sexually when exposed to nude female children (Freund et al. 1972). A significant proportion (one-third) of undergraduate students who acknowledged sexual attraction to small children also conceded some probability of actually having sex with a child if they could avoid detection and punishment (Briere and Runtz 1989).
And how is that surprising (that it equaled or exceeded arousal to adult stimuli, never mind the unreported percentage that exhibited slightly less arousal)? For 99 percent of our evolutionary history the average age of first pregnancy was 13, and no doubt attempts were being made well before then (how many people are even aware of that history, and why not?). If you weren't attracted to “children,” you didn't reproduce. In every hunter-gatherer society sufficiently isolated from the modern world that has been encountered, children have been found having sex with other children and adults (paraphrased from Jared Diamond, “The World Before Yesterday”). Sexual perceptions of beauty evolved in such contexts. Empirically speaking, “pedophilia,” rather than being an active child molester, as is understood popularly, is simply synonymous with male heterosexuality.

Of course, in the tiny fraction of history that the last 70 years or so represents, such sexual interactions are uncommon, and arguably should be (though I don't know where to begin with the idea that “consent is impossible for anybody under a certain age,” with regard to anything.) It is uncommon for pre-adolescent females to sexually proposition or be open to advances from older male teenagers or adults, and so there's normally no reinforcement of the evolved trait. When such lack of reinforcement is combined with society's vehement disapproval – relegating transgressors to the status of monster and legally requiring them to tell neighbors they are monsters wherever they try to live for the rest of their lives, even if falsely accused – it can be rest assured that when we say “I'm no fuckin' pedo,” (or the like) it can usually be believed. We've honestly repressed it (terror is a strong motivator), or in any case most of us are fully capable of caring for and empathizing with a preadolescent or adolescent girl, or being a magnanimously loving father, while imposing no risk to her best interests. But shouldn't 99 percent plus of our sexual evolutionary context frame any honest discussion of “pedophilia?”

If we fret so much about it, if the truth is so important to truly protecting children, as in most any case it is, then why is there no distinction between the “pedophile” (psychologists term an exclusive attraction to children “true pedophilia”) and the potential child molester in popular discussion? Hall (cited above), notes there are male child molesters who do not react physiologically to sexual images of female children to near the degree of average normal males, instead attributing their acting on molestation to a generalized correlation with moral dyscontrol (in short, a lack of empathy in context, like most criminals). That is, what is popularly understood as “pedophilia” often isn't even a factor in cases of child rape. Yet that's not part of the discussion. Could it be because we've grown attached to the emotional convenience of having a “witch, a “nigger,” and a “fag” in one in the “pedophile,” and want to understand the issue in such terms?
 
Last edited:
Good post...

But I don't think "witch" "nigger" "fag" and "pedophile" cover the same thing. Maybe in one slice of a way, but a pedophile often abuses. This can't really be said for the others (under the "descriptor"). I witch may not be a witch. They may just be divining. They may be trying magic, but causing no harm. A fag is just a fag, if just a fag. A nigger is just a "nigger". But a pedophile, might have coerced someone weaker than them, in some way. They take advantage of vulnerability, and are a special danger to children. I would surely want to keep pedophiles away from my children. If I saw a known one talking to my children, I'd react. I can see what you're saying but it doesn't work quite the same.
 
Last edited:
Top